James Travers, in the Toronto Star:
"A war Stephen Harper inherited from Liberals and chose to make his own is expanding exponentially to fill the space a government that labels itself "new" now needs for renewal. Required for redefinition and a return to the basics of family values, law and order and tax cuts, that elbow room will shrink if climbing casualties keep Conservatives on the defensive.
"Sadly for those serving their country, that's the forecast. All the optimistic talk about reconstruction isn't making Afghanistan any safer, a reality certain to have even greater political implications in August when Quebec's Van Doos regiment rotates into enemy range.
"As if that isn't worrying enough for a minority prime minister hunting a majority among Quebec voters, six more deaths in a single incident yesterday is another blow to already slim Canadian hopes of a graceful Kandahar retreat. Those few NATO members militarily able to do the job aren't willing to take the political risks of filling a breach that opens in February 2009 when the current mission ends.
"There's no obvious escape from that dilemma or from the coming debate. As the Prime Minister insists, Canada can't walk away without replacements or stay longer without Parliament's approval.
"NATO needs to know Ottawa's decision by early 2008 at the latest, a collapsing time frame forcing an autumn deconstruction of the mission, its defining purpose and its chances of success. Having avoided a full debate once by threatening an unwanted election, Harper now must find political cover in an elusive consensus.
"There's rough justice in the Prime Minister's problem. Instead of using the war to drive a wedge between his opponents, Harper could have built broad support around extending the mission, something that would now serve him well.
"But that's not this prime minister's style. Playing to his core constituency, Harper consistently looks for political advantage by publicly doubting the patriotism of those who question the mission."
The core question is intriguing. Should Canada soberly weigh this mission, the facts on the ground, the reality of our capabilities and the refusal of our alliance brothers to share the load? If we do that we will declare to all of the players in this tragedy that we really need to get out and let them get their own house in order.
If and when we come to the inevitable conclusion we will be announcing NATO's utter failure in its efforts to appease Washington by going into an area on a mission utterly ill-suited to NATO's militaries and experience. We may well define the tipping point of the entire non-US history of Afghanistan and a good deal of Washington's also.
The best and only good way of going through this ordeal is by an absolute dedication to brutal honesty. That's the only thing that will be around to support us one or two decades hence and by then any spin or ruse will be documented in history books and our dignity straight down the toilet along with it if we take the weasel route.
2 comments:
It is an interesting view, but I tend to believe Harper has a singular focus on one theme and one theme only: getting a majority in the next election. In that context, Afganistan does not matter except to the extent it aids him go toward that goal, just as any other issue.
Recently I have noticed he has started to use the phrase"Canada is back". Now our own knowledge of our history is not very good, and for those who are familiar with it, this may seem a strange phrase. Back to what, from where, and about what. But with Harper there is no need to be troubled about truth, in fact, it is a central idea of the Straussian approach that really big and impressive lies must be told, those that are likely to excite the population without endangering the government. A lies that can be used both as an ad and as a club.
So from his perspective it would be great to use the whole military, action, death and glory thing to help him toward a majority. It does not have to be true.It is much better, in fact, if it is not. It helps that most of us have no idea where we have been such that anyone can talk about coming "back". So a minor rehab job on naval assets is enough to enable the phrase, and this just weeks from Harper suggesting that without a big Commons vote he wont stay in Afganistan!
The logical chaos of this position is really wild, until it occurs that it just might be the first use of the big slogan his back room boys are crafting for the really big ad campaign. It does sound about right for what he needs.And it will not be destroyed by plodding, tedious accounts on how it is all bs. And it does not matter whether Canada stays in Afganistan or not. "Canada is Back", see, and don't bother me about what that means. I hope the Liberals have ad men as casuistic as the Harper crowd to work out the antidote. Really though, would it not be fun to get ahead of his miserable bunch of cement head fakers.
You're right, Gary. I don't think there's a policy, programme or principle that Harpo wouldn't scrap in a heartbeat if it would improve his chances of that all-important majority. He needs a breakthrough in the next election and he knows it. Treading water isn't good enough because his real agenda is a mirage without a solid majority. This is a man with a shortage of vision and a surplus of agenda.
Post a Comment